ANGEL AK I

journal of the theoretical humanities

volume 15 number 2 august 2010

xplications of the reconstruction of Leibniz’s

E metaphysics that Deleuze undertakes in The
Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque focus predomi-
nantly on the role of the infinitesimal calculus
developed by Leibniz.1 While not underestimat-
ing the importance of the infinitesimal calculus
and the law of continuity as reflected in the
calculus of infinite series to any understanding
of Leibniz’s metaphysics and to Deleuze’s
reconstruction of it in The Fold, what I propose
to examine in this paper is the role played by
other developments in mathematics that Deleuze
simon duffy
draws upon, including those made by a number
of Leibniz’s near contemporaries – the projective
geometry that has its roots in the work of
Desargues (1591–1661) and the ‘‘proto-topol- DELEUZE, LEIBNIZ
ogy’’2 that appears in the work of Dürer (1471–
AND PROJECTIVE
1528) – and a number of the subsequent
developments in these fields of mathematics. GEOMETRY IN
Deleuze brings this elaborate conjunction of
material together in order to set up a mathema- THE FOLD
tical idealization of the system that he considers
to be implicit in Leibniz’s work. The result is
a thoroughly mathematical explication of the Leibniz’s metaphysics with the variety of math-
structure of Leibniz’s metaphysics. What is ematical themes that run throughout his work.
provided in this paper is an exposition of the Those aspects of Leibniz’s metaphysics that
very mathematical underpinnings of this Deleuze undertakes to clarify in this way, and
Deleuzian account of the structure of Leibniz’s upon which this paper will focus, include:
metaphysics, which, I maintain, subtends the (1) the definition of a monad; (2) the theory
entire text of The Fold. of compossibility; (3) the difference between
Deleuze’s project in The Fold is predomi- perception and apperception; and (4) the
nantly oriented by Leibniz’s insistence on the range and meaning of the pre-established har-
metaphysical importance of mathematical spec- mony. However, before providing the details
ulation. What this suggests is that mathematics of Deleuze’s reconstruction of the structure of
functions as an important heuristic in the Leibniz’s metaphysics, it will be necessary to give
development of Leibniz’s metaphysical theories. an introduction to Leibniz’s infinitesimal calculus
Deleuze puts this insistence to good use and to some of the other developments
by bringing together the different aspects of in mathematics associated with it.

ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN1469-2899 online/10/020129^19 ß 2010 Taylor & Francis and the Editors of Angelaki
DOI: 10.1080/0969725X.2010.521401

129
 the fold

leibniz’s law of continuity and the

infinitesimal calculus
Leibniz was both a philosopher and mathemati-
cian. As a mathematician, he made a number
of innovative contributions to developments in
mathematics. Chief amongst these was his
infinitesimal analysis, which encompassed the
investigation of infinite sequences and series,
the study of algebraic and transcendental curves3
and the operations of differentiation and integra-
tion upon them, and the solution of differential
equations: integration and differentiation being
Fig.1.
the two fundamental operations of the infinitesi-
mal calculus that he developed.
Leibniz applied the calculus primarily to
problems about curves and the calculus of finite separated by an infinitely small distance or
sequences, which had been used since antiquity vanishing difference, which he called a differ-
to approximate the curve by a polygon in the ential.5 The Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus
Archimedean approach to geometrical problems was built upon the concept of the differential.
by means of the method of exhaustion. In his The differential, dx, is the difference in x values
early exploration of mathematics, Leibniz applied between two consecutive values of the variable
the theory of number sequences to the study (at P. See Fig. 1.), and the tangent is the line
of curves and showed that the differences and joining such points.
sums in number sequences correspond to tan- The differential relation, that is, the quotient
gents and quadratures, respectively, and he between two differentials of the type dy/dx,
developed the conception of the infinitesimal serves in the determination of the gradient of the
calculus by supposing the differences between tangent to the circle or curve. The gradient of a
the terms of these sequences infinitely small tangent indicates the slope or rate of change of
(see Bos 13). the curve at that point, that is, the rate at which
One of the keys to the calculus that Leibniz the curve changes on the y-axis relative to the
emphasized was to conceive the curve as an x-axis. Leibniz thought of the ‘‘dy’’ and ‘‘dx’’ in
infinitangular polygon.4 Leibniz based his proofs dy/dx as ‘‘infinitesimal’’ quantities. Thus dx was
for the infinitangular polygon on a law of an infinitely small non-zero increment in x and dy
continuity, and he used the adjective continuus was an infinitely small non-zero increment in y.
for a variable ranging over an infinite sequence Leibniz brings together the definition of the
of values. In the infinite continuation of the differential as it operates in the calculus of
polygon, its sides become infinitely small and its infinite series, in regard to the infinitangular
angles infinitely many. The infinitangular poly- triangle, and the infinitesimal calculus, in regard
gon is considered to coincide with the curve, to the determination of tangents to curves, as
the infinitely small sides of which, if prolonged, follows:
would form tangents to the curve, where a
Here dx means the element, that is, the
tangent is a straight line that touches a circle or
(instantaneous) increment or decrement, of the
curve at only one point. Leibniz applied the law
(continually) increasing quantity x. It is also
of continuity to the tangents of curves as follows: called difference, namely the difference
he took the tangent to be continuous with, or as between two proximate x’s which differ by
the limiting case (‘‘terminus’’) of the secant. an element (or by an inassignable), the one
To find a tangent is to draw a straight line joining originating from the other, as the other
two points of the curve – the secant – which are increases or decreases (momentaneously).6

130
 duffy

The differential can therefore be understood, on

the one hand, in relation to the calculus of infinite
series as the infinitesimal difference between
consecutive values of a continuously diminishing
quantity, and, on the other, in relation to the
infinitesimal calculus as an infinitesimal quantity.
The operation of the differential in the latter
actually demonstrates the operation of the
differential in the former, because the operation
of the differential in the infinitesimal calculus
in the determination of tangents to curves
demonstrates that the infinitely small sides of
the infinitangular polygon are continuous with
the curve.
In one of his early mathematical manuscripts
entitled ‘‘Justification of the Infinitesimal
Calculus by That of Ordinary Algebra,’’ Leibniz
offers an account of the infinitesimal calculus in
relation to a particular geometrical problem that
is solved using ordinary algebra.7 An outline of
the demonstration that Leibniz gives is as shown
in Fig. 2.8 Since the two right triangles, ZFE and
ZHJ, which meet at their apex, point Z, are
similar, it follows that the ratio y/x is equal to Fig. 2.
(Y  y)/X. As the straight line EJ approaches
point F, maintaining the same angle at the
variable point Z, the lengths of the straight lines
FZ and FE, or y and x, steadily diminish, yet the supposition that the ratio y/x is equal to the ratio
ratio of y to x remains constant. When the of the infinitesimals, dy/dx. When the relation
straight line EJ passes through F, the points E continues even though the terms of the relation
and Z coincide with F, and the straight lines, y have disappeared, a continuity has been con-
and x, vanish. Yet y and x will not be absolutely structed by algebraic means that is instructive
nothing since they preserve the ratio of ZH to HJ, of the operations of the infinitesimal calculus.
represented by the proportion (Y  y)/X, which What Leibniz demonstrates in this example are
in this case reduces to Y/X, and obviously does the conditions according to which any unique
not equal zero. The relation y/x continues to exist triangle can be considered as the extreme case of
even though the terms have vanished since the two similar triangles opposed at the vertex.9
relation is determinable as equal to Y/X. In this Deleuze argues that, in the case of a figure in
algebraic calculus, the vanished lines x and y are which there is only one triangle, the other triangle
not taken for zeros since they still have an is there, but it is there only virtually.10 The
algebraic relation to each other. ‘‘And so,’’ virtual triangle has not simply disappeared,
Leibniz argues, ‘‘they are treated as infinitesi- but rather it has become unassignable, all the
mals, exactly as one of the elements while remaining completely determined. The
which . . . differential calculus recognises in the hypotenuse of the virtual triangle can be
ordinates of curves for momentary increments mapped as a side of the infinitangular polygon,
and decrements’’ (545). That is, the vanished which, if prolonged, forms a tangent line to the
lines x and y are determinable in relation to each curve. There is therefore continuity from the
other only in so far as they can be replaced by polygon to the curve, just as there is continuity
the infinitesimals dy and dx, by making the from two similar triangles opposed at the vertex

131
 the fold

to a single triangle. Hence this relation is

fundamental for the application of differentials
to problems about tangents.
In the first published account of the calculus,11
Leibniz defines the ratio of infinitesimals as the
quotient of first-order differentials, or the
associated differential relation. He says that
‘‘the differential dx of the abscissa x is an
arbitrary quantity, and that the differential dy of
the ordinate y is defined as the quantity which
is to dx as the ratio of the ordinate to the
subtangent’’ (Boyer 210) (see Fig. 1). Leibniz
considers differentials to be the fundamental
concepts of the infinitesimal calculus, the
Fig. 3.
differential relation being defined in terms of
these differentials.

newton’s method of fluxions and He conceptualized the tangent geometrically,

infinite series as the limit of a sequence of lines between two
points, P and Q, on a curve, which is a secant
Newton began thinking of the rate of change, or (see Fig. 3). As the distance between the points
fluxion, of continuously varying quantities, which approached zero, the secants became progres-
he called fluents such as lengths, areas, volumes, sively smaller; however, they always retained
distances, temperatures, in 1665, which pre-dates ‘‘a real length.’’ The secant therefore approached
Leibniz by about ten years. Newton regards his the tangent without reaching it. When this
variables as generated by the continuous motion distance ‘‘got arbitrarily small (but remained a
of points, lines, and planes, and offers an account real number)’’14 it was considered insignificant
of the fundamental problem of the calculus as for practical purposes, and was ignored. What is
follows: ‘‘Given a relation between two fluents, different in Leibniz’s method is that he ‘‘hypothe-
find the relation between their fluxions, and sized infinitely small numbers – infinitesimals –
conversely.’’12 Newton thinks of the two variables to designate the size of infinitely small intervals’’
whose relation is given as changing with time, (Lakoff and Núñez 224) (see Fig. 1). For Newton,
and, although he does point out that this is useful on the contrary, these intervals remained only
rather than necessary, it remains a defining small, and therefore real. When performing
feature of his approach and is exemplified in calculations, however, both approaches yielded
the geometrical reasoning about limits, which the same results. But they differed ontologically,
Newton was the first to come up with.13 Put because Leibniz had hypothesized a new kind
simply, to determine the tangent to a curve at a of number, a number Newton did not need, since
specified point, a second point on the curve is ‘‘his secants always had a real length, while
selected, and the gradient of the line that runs Leibniz’s had an infinitesimal length’’ (Lakoff
through both of these points is calculated. As the and Núñez 224). Leibniz’s symbolism also treats
second point approaches the point of tangency, quantities independently of their genesis, rather
the gradient of the line between the two points than as the product of an explicit functional
approaches the gradient of the tangent. The relation. Deleuze uses this distinction between the
gradient of the tangent is, therefore, the limit of methods of Leibniz and Newton to characterize
the gradient of the line between the two points as the mind–body distinction in Leibniz’s account of
the points become increasingly close to one the monad, the details of which will be returned
another. to later in the paper.

132
 duffy

Both Newton and Leibniz are credited with functiones of a curve,16 and thereby introduced
developing the calculus as a new and general the term ‘‘function’’ into mathematics. However,
method, and with having appreciated that the it is important to note the absence of the fully
operations in the new analysis are applicable to developed concept of function in the context of
infinite series as well as to finite algebraic algebraic relations between variables for Leibniz.
expressions. However, neither of them clearly Today, a function is understood to be a relation
understood nor rigorously defined their funda- that uniquely associates members of one set with
mental concepts. Newton thought his underlying members of another set. Neither the equations
methods were natural extensions of pure geome- nor the variables are functions; rather, the
try, while Leibniz felt that the ultimate justifica- relation between x and y was considered to be
tion of his procedures lay in their effectiveness. one entity. Thus the curve was not seen as a
For the next two hundred years, various attempts graph of a function but rather as ‘‘a figure
were made to find a rigorous arithmetic founda- embodying the relation between x and y.’’17
tion for the calculus, one that relied on neither In the first half of the eighteenth century a shift
the mathematical intuition of geometry, with of focus occurred from the curve and the
its tangents and secants – which was perceived as geometric quantities themselves to the formulas
imprecise because its conception of limits was which expressed the relations among these
not properly understood – nor the vagaries of the quantities, thanks in large part to the symbols
infinitesimal, which cannot be justified either introduced by Leibniz. The analytical expressions
from the point of view of classical algebra or from involving numbers and letters, rather than the
the point of view of arithmetic, and therefore geometric objects for which they stood, became
made many mathematicians wary, so much so the focus of interest. It was this change of focus
that they refused the hypothesis outright despite towards the formula that made the emergence
the fact that Leibniz ‘‘could do calculus using of the concept of function possible. In this
arithmetic without geometry – by using infinite- process, the differential underwent a correspond-
simal numbers’’ (Lakoff and Núñez 224–25). ing change; it lost its initial geometric connota-
tions and came to be treated as a concept
the emergence of the concept of connected with formulas rather than with figures.
With the emergence of the concept of the
the function function, the differential was replaced by
Seventeenth-century analysis was a corpus of the derivative, which is the expression of the
analytical tools for the study of geometric objects, differential relation as a function, first developed
the most fundamental object of which, thanks to in the work of Euler (1707–83). One significant
the development of a curvilinear mathematical difference, reflecting the transition from a
physics by Christiaan Huygens (1629–95), was geometric analysis to an analysis of functions
the curve, or curvilinear figures generally, which and formulas, is that the infinitesimal sequences
were understood to embody relations between are no longer induced by an infinitangular
several variable geometrical quantities defined polygon standing for a curve, according to the
with respect to a variable point on the curve. law of continuity as reflected in the infinitesimal
The variables of geometric analysis referred to calculus, but by a function, defined as a set of
geometric quantities, which were conceived not as ordered pairs of real numbers.
real numbers but rather as having a dimension:
for example, ‘‘the dimension of a line (e.g., subsequent developments in
ordinate, arc length, subtangent), of an area
(e.g., the area between curve and axis) or of a
mathematics: the problem of rigour
solid (e.g., the solid of revolution).’’15 The The concept of the function, however, did not
relations between these variables were expressed immediately resolve the problem of rigour in the
by means of equations. Leibniz actually referred calculus. It was not until the late nineteenth
to these variable geometric quantities as the century that an adequate solution to this problem

133
 the fold

was posed. It was Karl Weierstrass (1815–97) who differential calculus, but it eliminated the use
‘‘developed a pure nongeometric arithmetization of the Leibnizian-inspired infinitesimals in doing
for Newtonian calculus’’ (Lakoff and Núñez 230), the calculus for over half a century. It was not
which provided the rigour that had been lacking. until the late 1960s, with the development of the
The Weierstrassian program determined that the controversial axioms of non-standard analysis
fate of calculus need not be tied to infinitesimals, by Abraham Robinson (1918–74), that the
and could rather be given a rigorous status from infinitesimal was given a rigorous foundation,22
the point of view of finite representations. thus allowing the inconsistencies to be removed
Weierstrass’s theory was an updated version from the Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus without
of an earlier account by Augustin Cauchy removing the infinitesimals themselves.23
(1789–1857), which had also experienced pro- Leibniz’s ideas have therefore been be ‘‘fully
blems conceptualizing limits. vindicated,’’24 as Newton’s had been thanks to
It was Cauchy who first insisted on specific Weierstrass.25
tests for the convergence of series, so that In response to these developments, Deleuze
divergent series could henceforth be excluded brings renewed scrutiny to the relationship
from being used to try to solve problems of between the developments in the history of
integration because of their propensity to lead to mathematics and the metaphysics associated
false results.18 By extending sums to an infinite with these developments, which were margin-
number of terms, problems began to emerge if alized as a result of efforts to determine the
the series did not converge, since the sum or limit rigorous foundations of the calculus. This is a
of an infinite series is determinable only if the part of Deleuze’s broader project of constructing
series converges. It was considered that reckoning an alternative lineage in the history of philosophy
with divergent series, which have no sum, would that tracks the development of a series of
therefore lead to false results. metaphysical schemes that respond to and
Weierstrass considered Cauchy to have actu- attempt to deploy the concept of the infinitesi-
ally begged the question of the concept of limit mal. The aim of the project is to construct a
in his proof.19 In order to overcome this problem philosophy of difference as an alternative spec-
of conceptualizing limits, Weierstrass ‘‘sought ulative logic that subverts a number of the
to eliminate all geometry from the study commitments of the Hegelian dialectical logic
of . . . derivatives and integrals in calculus’’ which supported the elimination of the infinite-
(Lakoff and Núñez 309). In order to characterize simal in favour of the operation of negation, the
calculus purely in terms of arithmetic it was procedure of which postulates the synthesis of
necessary for the idea of a curve in the Cartesian a series of contradictions in the determination of
plane defined in terms of the motion of a point to concepts.26
be completely replaced with the idea of a
function. The geometric idea of ‘‘approaching
the theory of singularities
a limit’’ had to be replaced by an arithmetized
concept of limit that relied on static logical Another development in mathematics, the rudi-
constraints on numbers alone. This approach is ments of which are in the work of Leibniz, is the
commonly referred to as the epsilon-delta theory of singularities. A singularity or singular
method.20 The calculus was thereby reformulated point is a mathematical concept that appears
without either geometric secants and tangents or with the development of the theory of functions,
infinitesimals; only the real numbers were used. which historians of mathematics consider to be
Because there is no reference to infinitesimals one of the first major mathematical concepts
in this Weierstrassian definition of the calculus, upon which the development of modern mathe-
the designation ‘‘the infinitesimal calculus’’ was matics depends. Even though the theory of
considered to be ‘‘inappropriate.’’21 Weierstrass’s functions doesn’t actually take shape until later
work not only effectively removed any remnants in the eighteenth century, it is in fact Leibniz
of geometry from what was now referred to as the who contributes greatly to this development.

134
 duffy

Indeed, it was Leibniz who developed the first gives the value of the gradient at the singular
theory of singularities in mathematics, and, point, the value of the second-order differential
Deleuze argues, it is with Leibniz that the concept relation, that is if the differential relation is
of singularity becomes a mathematico-philoso- itself differentiated and which is now referred to
phical concept.27 However, before explaining as the second derivative, indicates the rate
what is philosophical in the concept of singularity at which the gradient is changing at that point.
for Leibniz, it is necessary to offer an account of This allows a more accurate approximation of the
what he considers singularities to be in mathe- shape of the curve in the neighbourhood of that
matics, and of how this concept was subsequently point.
developed in the theory of analytic functions, Leibniz referred to the stationary points as
which is important for Deleuze’s account of maxima and minima depending on whether the
(in)compossibility in Leibniz, despite its not curve was concave up or down, respectively.
being developed until long after Leibniz’s death. A curve is concave up where the second-order
The great mathematical discovery that Deleuze differential relation is positive and concave down
refers to is that singularity is no longer thought of where the second-order differential relation is
in relation to the universal, but rather in relation negative. The points on a curve that mark
to the ordinary or the regular.28 In classical logic, a transition between a region where the curve is
the singular was thought of with reference to the concave up and one where it is concave down are
universal; however, that doesn’t necessarily points of inflection. The second-order differential
exhaust the concept since in mathematics the relation will be zero at an inflection point.
singular is distinct from or exceeds the ordinary Deleuze distinguishes a point of inflection, as an
or regular. Mathematics refers to the singular and intrinsic singularity, from the maxima and
the ordinary in terms of the points of a curve, or minima, as extrinsic singularities, on the grounds
more generally concerning complex curves or that the former ‘‘does not refer to coordinates’’
figures. A curve, a curvilinear surface, or a figure but rather ‘‘corresponds’’ to what Leibniz calls
includes singular points and others that are an ‘‘ambiguous sign,’’30 that is, where concavity
regular or ordinary. Therefore, the relation changes, the sign of the second-order differential
between singular and ordinary or regular points relation changes from þ to , or vice versa.
is a function of curvilinear problems which can be The value of the third-order differential
determined by means of the Leibnizian infinite- relation indicates the rate at which the second-
simal calculus. order differential relation is changing at that
The differential relation is used to determine point. In fact, the more successive orders of the
the overall shape of a curve primarily by differential relation that can be evaluated at the
determining the number and distribution of its singular point, the more accurate the approxima-
singular points or singularities, which are defined tion of the shape of the curve in the ‘‘immediate’’
as points of articulation where the shape of the neighbourhood of that point. Leibniz even
curve changes or alters its behaviour. For provided a formula for the nth-order differential
example, when the differential relation is equal relation, as n approaches infinity (n ! 1). The
to zero, the gradient of the tangent at that point nth-order differential relation at the point of
is horizontal, indicating that the curve peaks or inflection would determine the continuity of the
dips, determining, therefore, a maximum or variable curvature in the immediate neighbour-
minimum at that point. These singular points hood of the inflection with the curve. Because the
are known as stationary or turning points. point of inflection is where the tangent crosses
The differential relation characterizes not only the curve (see Fig. 4.) and the point where
the singular points which it determines but also the nth-order differential relation as n ! 1 is
the nature of the regular points in the immediate continuous with the curve, Deleuze characterizes
neighbourhood of these points, that is, the shape the point of inflection as a point-fold, which
of the branches of the curve on either side of each is the trope that unifies a number of the themes
singular point.29 Where the differential relation and elements of The Fold.

135
 the fold

Fig. 4.

the characteristics of a point-fold as sides, c2 ¼ a2 þ b2. In a unit square, the diagonal

reflected in the point of inflection is the hypotenuse of a right isosceles triangle,pffi
with sides a ¼ b ¼ 1, hence c2 ¼ 2, and c ¼ 2,
Deleuze considers Baroque mathematics to have or ‘‘the square root of 2.’’ Thus there
pffiexists a line
been born with Leibniz, and he gives two segment whose length is equal to 2, which is
examples of how infinite variables emerge as an irrational number. Against the intentions of
the object that defines the discipline of this Pythagoras, it had thereby been shown that
period, and in both cases Deleuze remarks on the rational numbers did not suffice for measuring
presence of a curved element that he characterizes even simple geometric objects.
as a point-fold. Another example of a simple irrational number
(1) The first is the irrational number and the is , which is determined by the relation between
corresponding serial calculus. An irrational the circumference, c, of a circle relative to its
number cannot be written as a fraction, and has diameter, d (where  ¼ c/d). Leibniz was the first
decimal expansions that neither terminate nor to find the infinite series (1  1/3 þ 1/5 
become periodic. Pythagoras believed that all 1/7 þ    ) of which /4 was the limit. Leibniz
things could be measured by the discrete natural only gave the formula of this series, and it was
numbers (1, 2, 3, . . . ) and their ratios (ordinary not until the end of the eighteenth century that
fractions, or the rational numbers). This belief this formula was demonstrated to be an infinite
was shaken, however, by the discovery that the convergent series by the mathematician Johann
hypotenuse of a right isosceles triangle (that is, Heinrich Lambert (1728–77).
diagonal of a unit square) cannot be expressed as Irrational numbers can p therefore remain in
ffi
a rational number. This discovery was brought surd form, as for example 2, or they may be
about by what is now referred to as Pythagoras’s represented by an infinite series. Deleuze defines
theorem,31 which establishes that the square of the irrational number as ‘‘the common limit
the hypotenuse of a right isosceles triangle is of two convergent series, of which one has
equal to the sum of the squares of the other two no maximum and the other no minimum’’

136
 duffy

unassigned virtual triangle, is retained by point F,

just as the differential relation designates the
gradient of a tangent to the curve at point F,
which can therefore be characterized as a
point-fold.
Deleuze maps these characteristics of a
point-fold onto the inflection and identifies it as
Fig. 5. ‘‘the pure Event of the line or of the point, the
Virtual, ideality par excellence’’ (The Fold 15).
The inflection is therefore deployed through-
out The Fold as the abstract figure of the event,
(The Fold 17), thus any irrational number is and any event is considered to be a concrete case
the limit of the sequence of its rational of inflection. By means of explanation, Deleuze
approximations, which can be represented as offers three examples, drawn from the work of
follows: increasing series ! irrational num- Bernard Cache,32 of the kind of virtual or
ber decreasing series. The diagram that continuous transformation that the inflection
Deleuze provides on page 17 is of a right isosceles can be understood to be characteristic of.
triangle,
pffi the sides of which are in the ratio (1) The first set of transformations are
1:1: 2 (see Fig. 5). ‘‘vectorial, or operate by symmetry, with an
It functions as a graphical representation of orthogonal or tangent plane of reflection’’
the ratio of pthe ffi sides of AC:AB (where (The Fold 15). The example that Deleuze offers
AC ¼ AX) pffi¼ 1: 2. The point X is the irrational is drawn from Baroque architecture, according to
number, 2, which represents the meeting point which an inflection serves to hide or round out
of the arc of the circle, of radius AC, inscribed the right angle. This is figured in the Gothic arch
from point C to X, and the straight line AB which has the geometrical shape of an ogive.
representing the rational number line. The arc (2) The second set of transformations is
of the circle produces a point-fold at X. The characterized as ‘‘projective.’’ The example that
‘‘straight line of rational points’’ is therefore Deleuze gives is the transformations of René
exposed ‘‘as a false infinite, a simple indefinite Thom (1923–2002) which refer ‘‘to a morphology
that includes
pffi the lacunae’’ of each irrational of living matter.’’ Thom developed catastrophe
number n, as n ! 1. The rational number theory, which is a branch of geometry that
line should therefore be understood to be attempts to model the effect of the continuous
interrupted p byffi these curves such as that repre- variation of one or more variables of a system that
sented by 2 in the given example. Deleuze produce abrupt and discontinuous transforma-
considers these to be events of the line, and then tions in the system. The results are representable
generalizes this example to include all straight as curves or functions on surfaces that depict
lines as intermingled with curves, point-folds or ‘‘seven elementary events: the fold; the crease;
events of this kind. the dovetail; the butterfly; the hyperbolic,
(2) The second example is the differential elliptical, and parabolic umbilicus’’ (The Fold
relation and differential calculus. Here Deleuze 16). The problem of the conceptualization of
argues that the diagram from Leibniz’s account of matter in Leibniz and the role of projective
the calculus in ‘‘Justification of the Infinitesimal methods in its conceptualization, specifically
Calculus by That of Ordinary Algebra’’ (see those of Desargues, will be addressed later in
Fig. 2) can be correlated with a point-fold by the paper.
mapping the hypotenuse of the virtual triangle (3) The third set of transformations ‘‘cannot be
onto a side of the infinitangular polygon, which, separated from an infinite variation or an
if prolonged, forms a tangent line to the curve. infinitely variable curve’’ (The Fold 17). The
Once the virtual triangle vanishes or becomes example that Deleuze gives is the Koch curve,
unassigned, the relation dy/dx, and therefore the demonstrated by Helge von Koch (1870–1924)

137
 the fold

in 1904. The method of constructing the Koch as determined by the principle of sufficient
curve is to take an equilateral triangle and trisect reason.
each of its sides. On the external side of each For Leibniz, every proposition can be
middle segment, construct equilateral triangles expressed in subject–predicate form. The subject
and delete the above-mentioned middle segment. of any proposition is a complete individual
This first iteration resembles a Star of David substance that is a simple, indivisible, dimension-
composed of six small triangles. Repeat the less metaphysical point or monad.34 Of this
previous process on the two outer sides of each subject it can be said that ‘‘every analytic
small triangle. This basic construction is then proposition is true,’’ where an analytical proposi-
iterated infinitely. With each order of iteration, tion is one in which the meaning of the predicate
the length of any side of a triangle is 4/3 times is contained in that of the subject. Deleuze
longer than the previous order. As the order suggests that if this definition is reversed, such
of iteration approaches infinity, so too then does that it reads: ‘‘every true proposition is necessa-
the length of the curve. The result is a curve rily analytic,’’ then this amounts to a formulation
of infinite length surrounding a finite area. The of Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason,35
Koch curve is an example of a non-differentiable according to which each time a true proposition
curve, that is, a continuous curve that does not is formulated it must be understood to be
have a tangent at any of its points. More analytic, that is, every true proposition is a
generalized Koch or fractal curves can be statement of analyticity whose predicate is wholly
obtained by replacing the equilateral triangle contained in its subject. It follows that if a
with a regular n-gon, and/or the ‘‘trisection’’ of proposition is true, then the predicate must be
each side with other equipartitioning schemes.33 contained in the concept of the subject. That is,
In this example, the line effectively and con- everything that happens to, everything that can
tinuously defers inflection by means of the be attributed to, everything that is predicated
method of construction of the folds of its sides. of a subject – past, present and future – must be
The Koch curve is therefore ‘‘obtained by means contained in the concept of the subject. So for
of rounding angles, according to Baroque Leibniz, all predicates, that is, the predicates
requirements’’ (The Fold 16). that express all of the states of the world, are
contained in the concept of each and every
particular or singular subject.
deleuze’s ‘‘leibnizian’’ interpretation There are, however, grounds to distinguish
of the theory of compossibility truths of reason or essence, from truths of fact or
existence. An example of a truth of essence would
What, then, does Deleuze mean by claiming that be the proposition 2 þ 2 ¼ 4, which is analytic;
Leibniz determines the singularity in the domain however, it is analytic in a stronger sense than
of mathematics as a philosophical concept? A a truth of fact or existence. In this instance,
crucial test for Deleuze’s mathematical recon- there is an identity of the predicate, 2 þ 2, with
struction of Leibniz’s metaphysics is how to deal the subject, 4. This can be proved by analysis,
with his subject–predicate logic. Deleuze main- that is, in a finite or limited number of quite
tains that Leibniz’s mathematical account of determinate operations, it can be demonstrated
continuity is reconcilable with the relation that 4, by virtue of its definition, and 2 þ 2,
between the concept of a subject and its by virtue of their definition, are identical. So, the
predicates. The solution that Deleuze proposes identity of the predicate with the subject in an
involves demonstrating that the continuity char- analytic proposition can be demonstrated in a
acteristic of the infinitesimal calculus is iso- finite series of determinate operations. While
morphic to the series of predicates contained in 2 þ 2 ¼ 4 occurs in all time and in all places,
the concept of a subject. An explanation of this and is therefore a necessary truth, the proposition
isomorphism requires an explication of Deleuze’s that ‘‘Adam sinned’’ is specifically dated, that is,
understanding of Leibniz’s account of predication Adam will sin in a particular place at a particular

138
 duffy

time. It is therefore a truth of existence and, as we contained in the concept of Adam is an indefinite
shall see, a contingent truth. According to the analysis, just as if the terms of the series that
principle of sufficient reason, the proposition includes sinner were isometric with 1/2 þ 1/4 þ
‘‘Adam sinned’’ must be analytic. If we pass from 1/8, etc., to infinity. In truths of essence the
one predicate to another to retrace all the causes analysis is finite, whereas in truths of existence
and follow up all the effects, this would involve the analysis is infinite under the above-mentioned
the entire series of predicates contained in the conditions of a well-determined finitude.
subject Adam, that is, the analysis would extend So what distinguishes truths of essence from
to infinity. So, in order to demonstrate the truths of existence is that a truth of essence is
inclusion of ‘‘sinner’’ in the concept of ‘‘Adam,’’ such that its contrary is contradictory and
an infinite series of operations is required. therefore impossible, that is, it is impossible for
However, we aren’t capable of completing such 2 and 2 not to equal 4. Just as the identity of
an analysis to infinity. 4 and 2 þ 2 can be proved in a series of finite
While Leibniz was committed to the idea of procedures, so too can the contrary, 2 þ 2 not
potential (‘‘syncategorematic’’) infinity, that is, to equalling 4, be proved to be contradictory and
infinite pluralities such as the terms of an infinite therefore impossible. While it is impossible to
series which are indefinite or unlimited, Leibniz think what 2 þ 2 not equalling 4 or a squared
ultimately accepted that, in the realm of quantity, circle may be, it is possible to think of an Adam
infinity could in no way be construed as a unified who might not have sinned. Truths of existence
whole by us. As Bassler clearly explains: are therefore contingent truths. A world in which
Adam might not have sinned is a logically
So if we ask how many terms there are in an possible world, that is, the contrary is not
infinite series, the answer is not: an infinite necessarily contradictory. While the relation
number (if we take this either to mean a
between Adam sinner and Adam non-sinner is a
magnitude which is infinitely larger than a
relation of contradiction since it is impossible
finite magnitude or a largest magnitude) but
rather: more than any given finite that Adam is both sinner and non-sinner, Adam
magnitude.36 non-sinner is not contradictory with the world
where Adam sinned, it is rather incompossible
The performance of such an analysis is indefinite with such a world. Deleuze argues that to be
both for us, as finite human beings, because our incompossible is therefore not the same as to be
understanding is limited, and for God, since there contradictory; it is another kind of relation
is no end of the analysis, that is, it is unlimited. that exceeds the contradiction.37 Deleuze char-
However, all the elements of the analysis are acterizes the relation of incompossibility as
given to God in an actual infinity. We can’t grasp ‘‘a difference and not a negation’’ (The Fold
the actual infinite, nor reach it via an indefinite 150). Incompossibility conserves a very classical
intuitive process. It is only accessible for us via principle of disjunction: it’s either this world or
finite systems of symbols that approximate it. some other one. So, when analysis extends to
The differential calculus provides us with an infinity, the type or mode of inclusion of the
‘‘artifice’’ to operate a well-founded approxima- predicate in the subject is compossiblity. What
tion of what happens in God’s understanding. interests Leibniz at the level of truths of existence
We can approach God’s understanding thanks to is not the identity of the predicate and the subject
the operation of differential calculus, without but rather the process of passing from one
ever actually reaching it. While Leibniz always predicate to another from the point of view of
distinguished philosophical truths and mathema- an infinite analysis, and it is this process that
tical truths, Deleuze maintains that the idea is characterized by Leibniz as having the max-
of infinite analysis in metaphysics has ‘‘certain imum of continuity. While truths of essence
echoes’’ in the calculus of infinitesimal analysis are governed by the principle of identity,
in mathematics. The infinite analysis that we truths of existence are governed by the law of
perform as human beings in which sinner is continuity.

139
 the fold

Rather than discovering the identical at the incompossibility are the direct consequences of
end or limit of a finite series, infinite analysis the theory of singularities.
substitutes the point of view of continuity for that
of identity. There is continuity when the extrinsic
projective geometry and point of view
case – for example the circle, the unique triangle
or the predicate – can be considered as included While each concept of the subject contains
in the concept of the intrinsic case, that is, the the infinite series of predicates that express the
infinitangular polygon, the virtual triangle, or the infinite series of states of the world, each
concept of the subject. The domain of (in)com- particular subject in fact only expresses clearly
possibility is therefore a different domain to that a small finite portion of it from a certain point
of identity/contradiction. There is no logical of view. In any proposition, the predicate is
identity between sinner and Adam, but there is contained in the subject; however, Deleuze
a continuity. Two elements are in continuity contends that it is contained either actually or
when an infinitely small or vanishing difference is virtually. Indeed, any term of analysis remains
able to be assigned between these two elements. virtual prior to the analytic procedure of its
Here Deleuze shows in what way truths of actualization. What distinguishes subjects is that
existence are reducible to mathematical truths. although they all contain the same virtual world,
Deleuze offers a ‘‘Leibnizian’’ interpretation of they don’t express the same clear and distinct
the difference between compossibility and incom- or actualized portion of it. No two individual
possibility ‘‘based only on divergence or conver- substances have the same point of view or exactly
gence of series’’ (The Fold 150). He proposes the the same clear and distinct zone of expression.
hypothesis that there is compossibility between Deleuze considers the explanation of point of
two singularities view to be mathematical or geometrical, rather
than psychological. In order to characterize the
when series of ordinaries converge, series of point of view of the monad Deleuze draws upon
regular points that derive from two singula- the projective geometry of Desargues (1591–
rities and when their values coincide, other-
1661). Desargues extends the work of Apollonius
wise there is discontinuity. In one case,
(262–190 BC) and Kepler (1571–1630) by intro-
you have the definition of compossibility,
in the other case, the definition of ducing new methods for proving theorems about
incompossibility.38 conics. He introduced a method of proof called
projection and section that unified the approach
If the series of ordinary or regular points that to the several types of conics that had previously
derive from singularities diverge, then you have been treated separately. Conic sections are curves
a discontinuity. When the series diverge, when formed by the intersection of a plane with the
you can no longer compose the continuity of this surface of a cone, that is, two right circular cones
world with the continuity of this other world, placed apex to apex. The principles of projection
then it can no longer belong to the same world. and section can be understood according to the
There are therefore as many worlds as diver- example of a flashlight that projects a circular
gences. All worlds are possible, but they are patch of light on a wall. The flashlight is regarded
incompossibles with each other. God conceives as a point or apex, the lines of light from the
an infinity of possible worlds that are not flashlight to the circle are said to constitute a
compossible with each other, from which He projection, and the wall itself is the plane that is
chooses the best of possible worlds, which said to contain a section of that projection.
happens to be the world in which Adam sinned. The circle on the wall would therefore be
A world is therefore defined by its continuity. understood mathematically as the section that
What separates two incompossible worlds is is projected on a plane passing through the
the fact that there is discontinuity between projection at 90 degrees. This problem is
the two worlds. It is in this way that extended mathematically if we suppose that a
Deleuze maintains that compossibility and different section of this same projection is made

140
 duffy

by a different plane that cuts the projection at a represented by the point of inflection to
different angle. For example, if the flashlight determine the point of view of a monad.
were held at an angle to the wall it would project However, rather than being mappable onto the
an ellipse. To project a figure from some point entire series of inflections that make up the curve
and then take a section of that projection is to included in a monad, point of view only projects
transform the figure to a new one. Shapes and onto the neighbourhood of a single inflection or
sizes change according to the plane of incidence singularity. This does not yet account for the
that cuts the cone of the projection, but certain fact that each individual subject only expresses
properties remain the same throughout such clearly a partial zone or subdivision of the infinite
changes, or remain invariant under the transfor- series of predicates or states of the world included
mation, and it is these properties that Desargues in the monad, but is only the first step of the
studied. Conic sections, including the parabola, explanation that Deleuze offers.
ellipse, hyperbola, and circle, can be obtained by The next step draws upon Leibniz’s distinction
continuously varying the inclination of the plane between three kinds of points: the physical, the
that makes the section, which means that they mathematical and the metaphysical. Leibniz
may be transformed into one another by suitable draws a clear distinction between the world of
projections and are therefore continuously deri- mathematical entities (lines, surfaces, numbers),
vable from each other. and the world of concrete things, which is
It is possible that Leibniz had read or at least reflected in the distinction between mathematical
knew of Desargues’s work through the work of points and physical points. For him a physical
Pascal (1623–62) and La Hire (1640–1718), which point is a centre of radiation of force which
Leibniz had became acquainted with during the cannot be further contracted. The physical point
years in which he was working on his early papers is what traces the lines of inflection that are
on situational analysis. Desargues, Pascal and extended up to the neighbourhood of other
La Hire first proved properties of the circle and singularities, and which is characterized by
then carried these properties over to the other Deleuze as the point of inflection. The mathema-
conic sections by projection and section on the tical point is a position, a site, a focus, or location
basis that since it is true of the circle it must by that Deleuze characterizes as the point of view.
projection and section be true of all conics. And the metaphysical point is simple, indivisible,
The commitment to algebra was so strong by and dimensionless, it is the soul or the subject
Descartes and his followers that projective that ‘‘must be placed in the body where its point
geometry went almost unnoticed at the time. of view is located,’’40 or, as Deleuze maintains,
The realization that a new branch of geometry it ‘‘is what occupies the point of view, it is what is
was implicit in their work did not come about projected in point of view’’ (The Fold 23).41
until the nineteenth century, by which time new While the inflection is a section of the
developments in mathematics allowed mathema- projection of a point of view, what comes to
ticians to bring to fruition the ideas still dormant occupy this point of view is a soul, a substance,
in projective geometry.39 a subject, a concept of the individual, designated
The summit of a cone is a point of view by a proper name (see The Fold 12, 19).
because, according to projective geometry, it The point of view is therefore the mode of
‘‘is the condition under which we apprehend the individuation of the individual subject. Because
group of varied forms or the series of curves’’ the subject occupies the point of view, point of
(The Fold 24), for example the circle, ellipse, view pre-exists the subject which is placed there.
parabola and hyperbole, that are derivable from Singularities are therefore pre-individual (see The
one another by projection and section. It is in this Fold 64). The finite portion of the world that the
way that a continuity has been constructed by individual subject expresses clearly is actually
means of the projective properties of the conic constituted by a small number of the points
sections, and it is this very continuity that of view of convergent inflections that represent
Deleuze maps onto the variable curvature the principal singularities or primary predicates

141
 the fold

of the monad. For example, Deleuze defines the itself.’’42 The infinite series of predicates or states
individual ‘‘Adam,’’ which Leibniz, in the letters of the world is in each monad in the form of
to Arnauld, describes as the ‘‘first man,’’ as the minute perception. These are infinitely tiny
first singularity; the ‘‘garden’’ as the second perceptions, which Deleuze characterizes as
singularity; ‘‘having a woman born of his own ‘‘unconscious perceptions’’ (The Fold 89), or as
side’’ as the third singularity; and as having the ‘‘differentials of consciousness’’ (93). Each
‘‘succumbed to temptation’’ as the fourth monad expresses every one of them, but only
singularity. obscurely or confusedly, like a clamour. Leibniz
Deleuze’s hypothesis is that the individual therefore distinguishes conscious perception as
subject is a condensation of such compossible, apperception from minute perception, which is
or convergent, singularities, and he draws upon not given in consciousness.
Leibniz’s distinction between the three kinds of When Leibniz mentions that conscious percep-
points for his explanation. Leibniz maintains that tions ‘‘arise by degrees from’’ minute percep-
it is possible for mathematical points to coincide; tions,43 Deleuze claims that what Leibniz indeed
for example, given an infinite number of means is that conscious perception ‘‘derives
triangles, it is possible to make their summits from’’ minute perceptions. It is in this way that
coincide in the one point, ‘‘as the different Deleuze links unconscious perception to infinite-
summits of separate triangles coincide at the simal analysis. Just as there are differentials for
common summit of a pyramid’’ (The Fold 63). a curve, there are differentials for consciousness.
This is why the mathematical points are not When the series of minute perceptions is
constituent parts, or physical points of extension. extended into the neighbourhood of a singular
The condensation of singularities in an individual point, or point of inflection, that perception
subject therefore means that the summits of the becomes conscious. Conscious perception, just
triangles that represent the mathematical points like the mathematical curve, is therefore subject
characteristic of point of view coincide in this way to a law of continuity, that is, an indefinite
in a metaphysical point. So Deleuze maintains continuity of the differentials of consciousness.
that the individual subject is a point, but a We pass from minute perception to conscious
metaphysical point, and the metaphysical point is perception when the series of ordinaries reaches
the ‘‘concentration, accumulation, coincidence of the neighbourhood of a singularity. In this way,
a certain number of converging preindividual the infinitesimal calculus operates as the uncon-
singularities’’ (The Fold 63). scious psychic mechanism of perception. Deleuze
understands the subdomain that each monad
the theory of the differential expresses clearly in terms of the constraints that
unconscious and the body as the principle of continuity places on a theory of
consciousness. ‘‘At the limit, then, all monads
phenomenal possess an infinity of compossible minute
The number of mathematical points, or points of perceptions, but have differential relations that
view, coincident in the individual subject at any will select certain ones in order to yield clear
one time corresponds to the proportion of the perceptions proper to each’’ (The Fold 90).
world that is expressed clearly and distinctly Before addressing Leibniz’s understanding of
by that individual, in relation to the rest of the the phenomenal nature of a monad’s body, his
world that is expressed obscurely and confusedly. account of matter, and Deleuze’s characterization
The explanation as to why each monad only of it, requires explication. At the most basic level,
expresses clearly a limited subdomain of the Leibniz identified extended matter with primitive
world that it contains pertains to Leibniz’s passive force that includes both impenetrability
distinction between ‘‘perception, which is the and resistance.44 In addition to this, Leibniz
inner state of the monad representing external considered nature to be infinitely divisible such
things, and apperception, which is consciousness that ‘‘the smallest particle should be considered
or the reflective knowledge of this inner state as a world full of an infinity of creatures.’’45

142
 duffy

He also maintained that ‘‘The division of the So there is a projection of structure from the
continuous must not be taken as of sand dividing mathematico-metaphysical onto the phenomenal,
into grains, but as that of a sheet of paper or of a which Deleuze distinguishes according to the
tunic in folds, in such a way that an infinite distinction canvassed earlier between the func-
number of folds can be produced, some smaller tional definition of the Newtonian fluxion and
than others, but without the body ever dissolving the Leibnizian infinitesimal as a concept. ‘‘The
into points or minima’’ (The Fold 6).46 physical mechanism of bodies (fluxion) is not
Deleuze takes this trope of ‘‘a tunic in folds’’ identical to the psychic mechanism of perception
to characterize Leibnizian matter as ‘‘solid pleats’’ (differentials), but the latter resembles the
that ‘‘resemble the curves of conical forms,’’ that former’’ (The Fold 98). So Deleuze maintains
is, the actual surface of the projection from that ‘‘Leibniz’s calculus is adequate to psychic
apex to a curve of the cone of a conic section mechanics where Newton’s is operative for
‘‘sometimes ending in a circle or an ellipse, physical mechanics’’ (98), and here again draws
sometimes stretching into a hyperbola or a from the mathematics of Leibniz’s contempor-
parabola.’’ Deleuze then proposes origami, the aries to determine a distinction between the mind
Japanese art of folding paper, as the model for the and body of a monad in Leibniz’s metaphysics.
sciences of Leibnizian matter (The Fold 6). How, then, does this relate to the body that
This accounts for the first type of fold that belongs to each monad? In so far as each monad
characterizes the pleats of matter, which are clearly expresses a small region of the world, what
then organized according to a second type of is expressed clearly is related to the monad’s
fold, which Deleuze characterizes mathematically body. Deleuze maintains that ‘‘I have a body
by means of Albrecht Dürer’s (1471–1528) because I have a clear and distinguished zone
projective method for the treatment of solids. of expression’’ (The Fold 98).
Dürer, in his work on the shadow of a cube, What is expressed clearly and distinctly is
devised a what relates to the biological body of each monad,
that is, each monad has a body that is in constant
proto-topological method of developing interaction with other bodies, and these other
[solids] on the plane surface in such a way bodies affect its body. So what determines such
that the facets form a coherent ‘‘net’’ which,
a relation is precisely a relationship between
when cut out of paper and properly folded
the physical elements of other bodies and the
where the two facets adjoin, will form an
actual, three-dimensional model of the solid monad’s biological body, each of which is
in question.47 characterized as a series of microperceptions
which are the differentials of consciousness.
What, then, does this mean for bodies? Bodies are Deleuze assimilates the relation between these
extended in so far as geometry is projected in this two series to the differential relation.
proto-topological way onto them. In a metaphysi- Microperceptions are brought to consciousness
cal sense, what is really there is force. In his notes by differentiating between the monad’s own
on Foucher, Leibniz explains that ‘‘Extension or biological body and the physical affects of its
space and the surfaces, lines, and points one can relations with other physical elements or bodies.
conceive in it are only relations of order or orders This results in the apperception of the relation
of coexistence.’’48 The extensionality of bodies between the body of the monad and the world
is therefore phenomenal in so far as it results it inhabits. However, the reality of the body is the
from the projection of geometrical concepts onto realization of the phenomena of the body by
the ‘‘tunic in folds’’ of matter. What to each means of projection, since the monad draws all
monad is its everyday reality is to Leibniz a perceptive traces from itself. The monad acts as
phenomenal projection, which is rendered intelli- if these bodies were acting upon it and were
gible only when it is understood to reflect the causing its perceptions. However, among monads
intelligible, mathematical order that determines there is no direct communication. Instead, each
the structure of Leibniz’s metaphysics.49 individual subject is harmonized in such a way

143
 the fold

that what it expresses forms a common compos- 8 The lettering has been changed to more directly
sible world that is continuous and converges with reflect the isomorphism between this algebraic
what is expressed by the other monads. So it is example and Leibniz’s notation for the infinitesi-
necessary that the monads are in harmony with mal calculus.
one another; in fact the world is nothing other 9 This example presents a variation of the infini-
than the pre-established harmony amongst tesimal or ‘‘characteristic’’ triangle that Leibniz
monads. The pre-established harmony is, on the was familiar with from the work of Pascal.
one hand, the harmony amongst monads, and on See Leibniz, ‘‘Letter to Tschirnhaus (1680)’’ in The
the other the harmony of souls with the body, Early Mathematical Manuscripts; and Pascal,‘‘Traite¤
that is, the bodies themselves are realized as des sinus du quart de cercle (1659)’’ in uvres
Mathe¤matiques.
phenomenal projections which puts them in
harmony with the interiority of souls. 10 Deleuze, Sur Leibniz, 22 Apr.
The reconstruction of Leibniz’s metaphysics
11 Leibniz, Mathematische Schriften V: 220 ^26.
that Deleuze provides in The Fold draws upon
not only the mathematics developed by Leibniz 12 Newton, Method of Fluxions and Infinite Series.
but also upon developments in mathematics made 13 Newton’s reasoning about geometrical limits
by a number of Leibniz’s contemporaries and a is based more on physical insights rather than
number of subsequent developments in mathe- mathematical procedures. In ‘‘Geometria
matics, the rudiments of which can be more or Curvilinea,’’ Newton develops the synthetic
less located in Leibniz’s own work. Deleuze then method of fluxions which involves visualizing the
retrospectively maps these developments back limit to which the ratio between vanishing geome-
onto the structure of Leibniz’s metaphysics in trical quantities tends.
order to bring together the different aspects of 14 Lakoff and Nu¤n‹ez 224.
Leibniz’s metaphysics with the variety of math-
ematical themes that run throughout his work. 15 Bos 6.
The result is a thoroughly math- 16 Leibniz, Methodus tangentium inversa; see
ematical explication of Leibniz’s Katz 199.
metaphysics, and it is this
17 See Bos 6.
account that subtends the entire
text of The Fold. 18 See Boyer 287. While Leibniz had already
envisaged the convergence of alternating series,
and by the end of the seventeenth century the
notes convergence of most useful concrete examples
I am grateful to the reviewer Rene¤ Guitart for his of series, which were of limited quantity, if not
constructive suggestions. finite, was able to be shown, it was Cauchy who
provided the first extensive and significant treat-
1 See, for example, Duffy, ‘‘Leibniz, Mathematics
ment of the convergence of series. See Kline 963.
and the Monad.’’
2 Panofsky 256. 19 For an account of this problem with limits in
Cauchy, see Potter 85^ 86.
3 Transcendental in this mathematical context
refers to those curves that were not able to be 20 See Potter 85.While the epsilon-delta method
studied using the algebraic methods introduced is due to Weierstrass, the definition of limits that it
by Descartes. enshrines was actually first proved by Bernard
Bolzano (1741^1848) in 1817 using different termi-
4 A concept that was already in circulation in nology (Ewald 225^ 48); however, it remained
the work of Fermat and Descartes. Leibniz, unknown until 1881 when a number of his
Mathematische Schriften V: 126. articles and manuscripts were rediscovered and
5 See ibid. 223. published.

6 Leibniz, Mathematische Schriften VII: 222^23. 21 Boyer 287.

7 Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters 545. 22 See Bell.

144
 duffy
23 The infinitesimal is now considered to be a ‘‘principle of continuity’’ which he coined and in a
hyperreal number that exists in a cloud of other broad philosophical sense goes back to the law
infinitesimals or hyperreals floating infinitesimally that Leibniz used in connection with the calculus.
close to each real number on the hyperreal However, Poncelet advanced it as an absolute
number line (Bell 262). The development of non- truth and applied it to prove many new theorems
standard analysis, however, has not broken the of projective geometry. See Kline 843.
stranglehold of classical analysis to any significant
40 ‘‘Letter to Lady Masham (1704)’’ in Leibniz,
extent, but this seems to be more a matter of
Philosophical Essays 290.
taste and practical utility rather than of necessity
(Potter 85). 41 Leibniz provides a mathematical representa-
24 Robinson 2. tion of the metaphysical points in his ontological
proof of God as 1/1. If the infinite is the set of all
25 Non-standard analysis allows ‘‘interesting possibilities, and if the set of all possibilities is pos-
reformulations, more elegant proofs and new sible, then there exists a singular individual who
results in, for instance, differential geometry, corresponds to it, and this singular individual is
topology, calculus of variations, in the theories of God represented mathematically by 1/1. From
functions of a complex variable, of normed linear God to the monad is to go from the infinite to the
spaces, and of topological groups’’ (Bos 81). individual unit that includes an infinity of predi-
cates. The metaphysical point that occupies the
26 For a more extensive discussion of this aspect
position of a monad’s point of view is the inverse
of Deleuze’s project, see Duffy, The Logic of
of the position occupied by God, and is repre-
Expression.
sented mathematically by 1/1. There is an infinity
27 Deleuze, Sur Leibniz, 29 Apr. of 1/1 (monads), and one all-inclusive 1/1 (God).
‘‘For Leibniz the monad is. . . the inverse, recipro-
28 Ibid.
cal, harmonic number. It is the mirror of the world
29 The concept of neighbourhood, in mathe- because it is the inverted image of God’’ (The Fold
matics, which is very different from contiguity, is 129).
a key concept in the whole domain of topology.
42 ‘‘Principles of Nature and Grace (1714)’’ in
30 Deleuze, The Fold 15. Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters x13.
31 Which was actually known to the Babylonians 43 In the preface to New Essays on Human
one thousand years earlier, although Pythagoras Understanding, Leibniz says that ‘‘noticeable per-
is considered to be the first to have proved it. ceptions arise by degrees from ones which are
too minute to be noticed’’ (56).
32 Cache 34 ^ 41, 48 ^51, 70 ^71, 84 ^ 85.
44 Leibniz, Philosophical Essays 120.
33 See Lakhtakia et al. 3538.
45 ‘‘Letter to Simon Foucher (1693)’’ in Leibniz,
34 Leibniz’s distinction between the three kinds
Die philosophischen Schriften I: 415^16.
of points ^ physical, mathematical, and metaphysi-
cal ^ will be returned to in the following section. 46 Pacidus Philalethi in Leibniz, Opuscules et frag-
ments 614 ^15.
35 Deleuze, Sur Leibniz,15 Apr.
47 Panofsky 259. This method was systematized
36 Bassler 870.
by Gaspard Monge (1746 ^1818) in what he called
37 And that Deleuze characterizes as ‘‘vice-dic- ‘‘descriptive geometry.’’
tion’’ (The Fold 59).
48 Leibniz, Philosophical Essays 146. See Garber
38 Deleuze, Sur Leibniz, 29 Apr. 34 ^ 40.
39 It did not achieve prominence as a field of 49 See Grene and Ravetz 141. Deleuze also poses
mathematics until the early nineteenth century the question of whether this topological account
through the work of Poncelet (1788 ^1867), can be extended to Leibniz’s concept of the vincu-
Gergonne (1771^1859), Steiner (1796 ^1863), von lum (The Fold 111). If so, the topology of the vincu-
Staudt (1798 ^1867) and Plu«cker (1801^ 68). One of lum would have to be isomorphic to that of
the leading themes in Poncelet’s work is the matter; however, it would be so within each

145
 the fold
monad, and would be complicated by itself being a Kline, Morris. Mathematical Thought from Ancient to
phenomenal projection. For further discussion ModernTimes.Vol. 3. New York: Oxford UP,1990.
of the vinculum in Leibniz see Look.
Lakhtakiatt, Akhlesh, Vijay K. Varadantt,
Russell Messier and Vasundara V. Varadan.
bibliography ‘‘Generalisations and Randomisation of the Plane
Koch Curve.’’ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and
Bassler, O. Bradley. ‘‘Leibniz on the Indefinite General 20 (1987): 3537^ 41.
as Infinite.’’ Review of Metaphysics 51.4 (1998):
849^75. Lakoff, George and Rafael E. Nu¤n‹ez. Where
Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind
Bell, John L. A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis. Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic,
Cambridge: Cambridge UP,1998. 2000.
Bos, Henk J.M. ‘‘Differentials, Higher-Order Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Die philosophischen
Differentials and the Derivative in the Leibnizian Schriften. 7 vols. Ed. Carl I. Gerhard. Berlin:
Calculus.’’ Archive for History of Exact Sciences 14.1 Weidman.1875^90.
(1974): 1^90.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. The Early Mathematical
Boyer, Carl B. The History of the Calculus and its Manuscripts of Leibniz. Trans. J.M. Child. London:
Conceptual Development. New York: Dover,1959. Open Court,1920.
Cache, Bernard. Earth Moves: The Furnishing of Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Mathematische
Territories. Trans. Anne Boyman. Ed. Michael Schriften. 7 vols. Ed. Carl I. Gerhard. Hildesheim:
Speaks. Cambridge, MA: MIT P,1995. Olms,1962.
Deleuze, Gilles. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Methodus tangentium
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P,1993. inversa, seu de fuctionibus,1673.
Deleuze, Gilles. Sur Leibniz. 22, 29 Apr. Trans. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. New Essays on Human
Charles J. Stivale. 1980 (Seminars given between Understanding. Ed. and trans. Peter Remnant and
1971 and 1987 at the Universite¤ Paris VIII Jonathan Bennett. NewYork: Cambridge UP,1996.
Vincennes and Vincennes St-Denis). Available
5http://www.webdeleuze.com4 (accessed 29 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Opuscules et fragments
Aug. 2010). ine¤dits de Leibniz. Ed. Louis Couturat. Paris: Alcan,
1903.
Duffy, Simon. ‘‘Leibniz, Mathematics and the
Monad.’’ Deleuze and The Fold: A Critical Reader. Ed. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Philosophical Essays.
Niamh McDonnell and Sjoerd van Tuinen. Ed. and Trans. Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber.
Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009. 89^111. Indianapolis: Hackett,1989.
Duffy, Simon. The Logic of Expression: Quality, Leibniz,Gottfried Wilhelm. Philosophical Papers and
Quantity, and Intensity in Spinoza, Hegel and Deleuze. Letters. 2nd ed.Trans. and ed., with an introduction
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. by Leroy E. Loemker. Dordrecht: Reidel,1969.
Ewald, William B. (ed.). From Kant to Hilbert: Look, Brandon. ‘‘Leibniz and the Substance of
A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics. the Vinculum Substantial.’’ Journal of the History of
2 vols. Oxford: Oxford UP,1996. Philosophy 38.2 (2000): 203^20.
Garber, Daniel. ‘‘Leibniz on Body, Matter and Newton, Isaac. ‘‘Geometria Curvilinea.’’
Extension.’’ Supplement to the Proceedings of the The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton. Volume 4,
Aristotelian Society 78.1 (2004): 23^ 40. 1674^1684. Ed. D. Whiteside. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP,1971. 407^524.
Grene, Marjorie and Jerome R. Ravetz. ‘‘Leibniz’s
Cosmic Equation: A Reconstruction.’’ Journal of Newton, Isaac. The Method of Fluxions and Infinite
Philosophy 59.6 (1962): 141^ 46. Series (1671).Trans. John Colson. London: Woodfall,
1736.
Katz, Victor J. ‘‘Stages in the History of Algebra
with Implications for Teaching.’’ Educational Studies Panofsky, Erwin. The Life and Art of Albrecht Du«rer.
in Mathematics 66 (2007): 185^201. Princeton: Princeton UP,1955.

146
 duffy
Pascal, Blaise. uvres Mathe¤matiques. Ed.
J. Chevalier. Paris: Gallimard,1954.
Potter, Michael D. Set Theory and its Philosophy:
A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004.
Robinson, Abraham. Non-standard Analysis. Rev. ed.
Princeton: Princeton UP,1996.

Simon Duffy
Department of Philosophy
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.